3. Feminism in the Reformed Churches: The Tactics, in Books
This series seeks to expose the threat of feminism against the Reformed churches, and to call on the godly to wage war against it. We first met the leaders of the movement, then we considered the ungodly tactics they employ online. Now we will consider the tactics they use in books, specifically in two books, which we now summon as star witnesses in our case against the feminists: Rachel Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission and Aimee Byrd’s freshly published Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. These books have already been ably reviewed at length by careful scholars (Miller’s here and here; Byrd’s here and here). In this article I underscore a few things those men have already said, with commentary of my own.
These two books sin against four great basic principles.
1. Against Honesty
The first sin is against the principle of honesty. This is committed, first, by misrepresenting history. Rachel Miller’s constant naming of the “Greeks, Romans, and Victorians” (47–75, and many other places) as enemies of biblical teaching on men and women is not only tiresome, but deceitful, in two respects. One, Christians should be, and have been, happy to find broad agreement with the consensus of the best pagan thought on many topics. Paul quotes Greek theological poetry in Acts 17:28, and appeals to common sense even in such a small matter as hair length in 1 Corinthians 11:14–15. That Greeks and Romans said something is no proof that it is wrong. The Bible does correct natural men where they err, and it alone reveals supernatural and saving mysteries, but it does not demean God’s image by suggesting that anything it says apart from Scripture is false (as Miller does, by constantly coupling “extrabiblical” and “unbiblical,” 14, 49, etc.). Two, her history leaves out the entire sweep of Christian history before the Victorians arose, conveniently ignoring the fact that Christian doctrine on these matters during that whole time was solidly and consistently patriarchal (e.g. read Chrysostom, then Aquinas, then Luther and Calvin, then Gouge), that the best Christians in the Victorian era stood for the same patriarchy of their fathers (e.g. Palmer and Warfield), and indeed that the Victorian era, insofar as it gave birth to modern feminism, actually departed from the consensus of classical and Christian antiquity. Is it not therefore the irony of ironies that Carl Trueman, who wrote the book against such biased history, nonetheless said of Miller’s book, “This is a refreshingly sane read”?
Sin against honesty is also committed in regard to contemporary history, in how these women portray their living opponents. Wedgeworth takes Miller to task for speaking evil of well-known ministers: for example, she blatantly misrepresents Mark Jones (168), Voddie Baucham (143), and Douglas Wilson (236). Andy Naselli gathers and refutes Byrd’s calumnies against complementarians, in which she attributes to them positively absurd ideas, such as that “all men lead all women” (22), that “the key aim for preaching, teaching, and discipleship” is manhood and womanhood, not eternal life with Christ (109), and that complementarianism is “irresponsible teaching” that promotes abuse (131). These claims are not only patently false, but uncharitable in the extreme. They are sinful slander, made all the more grievous because they are committed against ordained public servants of the Lord (1 Tim. 5:19; cf. 2 Kings 2:23–24).
I only have to add that the theological high horse they ride against proponents of “Eternal Subordination of the Son” (Miller, 115–117; Byrd, 100–104) is lame. At best the argument is a red herring: stinky, but misleading. Let’s say we follow the feminists in decrying certain complementarians as outright Trinitarian heretics. Even if the charge is true, then what does it matter? Show me that Michael Servetus himself also believed in the subjection of women: I would have no more reason to doubt its truth, and no less reason to condemn his heresy. And moreover, what of men who defend not the modern idea of complementarianism, as such, but rather classical and biblical patriarchy? Men who pore over Turretin and van Mastricht, but have barely glanced at Ware and Grudem? Are they therefore exempt from this theological taint?
Moreover, the authors’ suggestive smearing tactic could with at least equal justice be used against them. For when angry and contentious women (Prov. 21:19), teaching harmful error in regard to Christian living (Titus 2:5; 3:8–10), present themselves as bold defenders of orthodox Trinitarianism, why should we take their claim at face value? Moreover, against their charge of eternal subordination, we could retort, the “first-wave feminists” Miller admires (77–88) repudiated the divine authority of Scripture (The Woman’s Bible, Introduction by Elizabeth Cady Stanton), and called for women “to speak and teach...in all religious assemblies” (The Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments,” Resolution 5; Miller, 78–79, appears to approve of the Declaration). We could furthermore ask why Miller feels the need to rescue some measure of reputation for the notorious eugenicist Margaret Sanger (85). Do modern Christian feminists not have any more reputable allies for their cause?
To the same point, it seems fair that if Byrd can blame men for citing those who teach eternal subordination, then we can blame Byrd for citing those who teach outright egalitarianism. Naselli summarizes:
To support her conjectures, Byrd interacts primarily with egalitarian works and repeatedly cites them—authors such as Richard Bauckham, Kenneth Bailey, Lynn Cohick, Kevin Giles, Carolyn Custis James, Philip Payne, Cynthia Westfall, and Ben Witherington. As Byrd selectively quotes egalitarians to support her arguments, she usually assumes the egalitarian reading is correct without interacting with robust complementarian arguments. This suggests that she shares many philosophical principles with egalitarianism.
We do not deny that a man is known by the company he keeps (Prov. 13:20), and a tree known by its fruits (Matt. 7:20; Titus 1:16). Nor do we say that we ought not try to draw out the hidden counsel in an author’s heart (Prov. 20:5). But this gives no excuse for attempting to hide grave error behind the bulwark of historic orthodoxy.
2. Against Truth
The second sin of these books is against truth. I do not mean merely to say that they tell many untruths, though they do. Rather, I mean that they drill holes in the foundation of all truth. They do this by sounding a subtle but insistent note of skepticism. This is evident in their framing of their discourse, not in terms of an argument, but of a conversation. In Byrd’s foreword to Miller’s book, note the repeated implication that no group or person can say anything on these matters with final, binding authority:
While not aligning with a movement, Rachel does want to contribute as a complementary, reciprocal voice in response to the many we have read and heard… If complementarianism is truly complementary, it should value this kind of engagement. Published resources for the church are meant to be thoughtfully engaged. Most authors do not presume to be the final voice on matters such as these; rather, they aim to offer their interpretation of pertinent scriptural principles in hopes to move forward in a biblical understanding of the sexes.
The same is subtly shown in that both books end their chapters with discussion questions, as if inviting the reader to agree or disagree. But all this talk of dialogue is a ruse. No true conversation is intended. Remember how when a godly Doctor of the church asked Byrd some reasonable questions, she dismissed him as a mere “colleague” barely worthy of a reply.
This skepticism is also evident in the constant use of questions that sow doubt on matters of great weight. Byrd, on pages 104–119, in four successive section headings asks four questions: (1) “What makes a ‘masculine male’ and a ‘feminine female’?”; (2) “What are feminine and masculine virtues?”; (3) “Is biblical manhood and womanhood our aim in discipleship?”; (4) “Distinct male and female discipleships?” If you were eager for answers to these very important questions, you’d be disappointed. It appears as far as she’s concerned, even searching for Scriptural solutions to them is dangerous, if not impossible. Indeed, when it comes to teaching what it actually means to be a man or woman, these women are emphatically undogmatic. Byrd admits that men and women are in some sense complementary, but explains, “I would not want to overgeneralize every man’s or woman’s disposition…. I wonder about being too rigid by assigning these dispositions as masculine and feminine” (125). This noncommittal rhetoric degrades to the point of saying nothing of substance at all, as shown in Miller’s quote from Gary Welton on p. 148: “The notion of what it means to be female, or what it means to be male, is extremely broad…. In fact, there should be no singular conception of what it means to be masculine or feminine.”
So, on these questions so basic to human existence, so necessary for virtue, so important for godliness, the best they appear to offer is an open question, “Who knows?” But lest you think they have altogether abandoned absolutes, they do remain entirely and unflinchingly dogmatic on one point, which they hammer home throughout their books: that the Greeks, Romans, Victorians, and Complementarians are all dead wrong. “Authority and submission” is something we must get beyond. “Biblical manhood and womanhood” is a dangerous ailment from which we must recover.
The inconsistency of this skepticism should be a reminder that appeals to uncertainty are usually deceitful and self-serving. When Pilate asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), he was not sincerely seeking an answer, but trying to wash his conscience clean of condemning the Son of God. Skepticism trumpets doubt as the means to truth, but when examined, what it calls “doubt” is rather the certainty that what God says, or nature proves, cannot be true. This tactic is no different in principle from that of Satan in the garden: “Yea, hath God said...?” (Gen. 3:1; cf. this article). It is a demonic method, pulled right from the playbook of the father of lies (John 8:44).
3. Against Nature
These women also sin against the concept of nature. This is a variation on number 1, since the Greeks and Romans were at their best merely seasoned nature guides, pointing out truths that should be obvious to all who live on earth. Such truths as, that women’s bodies and souls show that they were made for bearing and nursing children, and for the quiet refuge of the home. That men’s bodies and souls testify to their place as public aggressors, powerfully pursuing a vocation, not the softer life of domesticity. That families ordered according to these realities are consistently happier. That no one is happy when a career woman rules the roost, or dad changes all the diapers. I need no chapter and verse to prove these things. Others can back them up with endless statistics, but that is not necessary. Their undeniable truth is revealed by the reaction to them, right now, in the conscience of most readers: they either assent to them as facts of common sense, or are enraged that I had the gall to name the very things they’ve been laboring to erase from memory. But nature is indelible. Every poor transgender person has found this to his great grief, when he wakes up from a sex change surgery. And every feminist who takes an honest look at nature will find it too, at the very latest on the day of judgment. Like all forms of unbelief, nature leaves feminism without excuse (Rom. 1:20).
I could go on longer. But the point in regard to these books, is that they say almost none of this. Miller does recognize, “Biologically, only women can bear children” (143), and, “It’s appropriate for us to raise our children as male or female based on their biological sex” (148). How brave. But in neither Miller nor Byrd is there much else by way of common sense sexuality. In fact, they repeat that we should argue from the Bible, and not from nature. But what of the Bible’s own appeals to nature in these matters? Why, we ask Paul, may women not preach (1 Tim. 2:12)? Because, as Satan knew, they are by nature more easily deceived (v. 14; cf. 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Tim. 3:6). The weaker vessel is not made for the rigors of the gospel ministry. They shouldn’t preach, because they can’t. Experience in liberal churches abundantly confirms this.
Now granted on this point, Miller says “only qualified men should be ordained as leaders in the church” (16). But Byrd seems to have already gone a few steps further, as the best I could find her saying was, “I do hold to the ordination of qualified males” (121). What about females? A hint of what’s to come appears in her constant legitimizing of the alternative: “I join hands with evangelical egalitarians...in the gospel” (121), “Whatever our stance is on ordination…” (203), “Churches that uphold male-only ordination...” (228, 231), “Some denominations and churches that hold to male-only ordination…” (232), “Whether you hold to male-only ordination or not...” (233) Indeed, the rot has run deeper into her heart than most want to admit. She openly advocates for women publicly reading Scripture and leading corporate prayers (232). She suggests she has found in the Bible a female “intermediary” of Paul, “carrying his gospel message” (146), female “leaders of house churches,” and even a female apostle (223). So when in a discussion question Byrd clucks condescendingly, “Complementarian churches fear that this will lead to women’s ordination” (234–235), we are not ashamed to respond, With all the hints she has given, isn’t that fear reasonable?
If we bring our focus back to nature, this slide makes perfect sense. Once we deny the natural reasons for a duty, the steps are very short to complaining against that duty as unreasonable, then finally to denying it altogether. Even Scriptural arguments will not hold up long, when we doubt the natural realities to which the Bible clearly points. Sexuality is a natural matter, and to studiously avoid natural arguments in natural matters, is either deceitful or ignorant. Nature is the elephant in the room, and it’s not going anywhere.
4. Against Scripture
Bless God, though, that in his kindness to us sinful creatures, he did not leave us without supernatural help, even in natural matters. The end of the Bible is to make sinners wise unto salvation, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:14–17), and therefore it gives us an infallible divine word for all matters necessary to that end. One of those matters is what it means to be a man or woman, and as even a casual reading will show, the Bible teaches abundantly on that. This is why we began our series with long lists of Scripture texts. Patriarchy is not merely a matter of “thus saith nature,” but all the more, “thus saith the Lord.”
Therefore, especially since these books are written by professing Christians, intended for readers in the churches, to help them understand biblical teaching, it is a very great shame that they abuse the Bible. They do so, first, by twisting the meaning of texts that are crystal clear. Apparently Byrd is afraid of 1 Corinthians 14:34, Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. It “can be,” she says, “a sort of Spook Hill in the back roads of the Bible” (194). Yet notwithstanding the fright, she assures us that both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14 “actually reveal the efforts to include the women’s voice and contribution, even in the worship service” (193). So somehow “Let your women keep silence” is a valiant effort on Paul’s part “to include the women’s voice.” Such ridiculous gymnastics of egalitarian exegesis would make one laugh, if it weren’t for the dire consequences that God threatens will follow them. Peter gave a fearful warning with regard to what feminists do to Paul’s epistles: ... in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
They abuse the Bible, second, in that apart from a few such dishonest attempts at exegesis (cf. Byrd 188–189 on the Hebrew ezer; for Miller see below), these books have precious little positive dealing with actual texts of Scripture. The reviews cited above clearly catalog this fact. Wedgeworth here deserves quotation:
Given the ambitious nature of Miller’s thesis, and her goal to provide a “biblical” paradigm, one would expect Beyond Authority and Submission to engage in substantial exegetical argumentation. Surprisingly, this is not the case. The section on biblical theology of authority and human relationships is actually one of the shortest in the entire book. Miller makes foundational arguments in the briefest of ways. Her framing of the creation ordinance, the original relationship between man and woman, is limited to just a few sentences. When it comes to a passage which earlier Christians appealed to in support of a hierarchical view of humanity, Miller casually states, “Woman was made for man’s sake, but all men since Adam have been born of women (see 1 Cor. 11:9–12)” (40). She gives no indication that this might be an extremely controversial passage or that its interpretation might be worth explaining more. She does not return to it anywhere else in the book. First Corinthians 14:34 is only mentioned once, and it is explained as only having an occasional referent, a specific group of particularly disruptive women. No consideration is given to the meaning of “as the Law also says.” Ephesians 5:22 is cited three times, but in only one place is an explanation given. That explanation is entirely a negative one, telling us what the text does not mean. Miller never tells us what it does mean. Colossians 3:18 is never mentioned. We are never told why Paul thinks it is important that the man was created first, and there is no discussion of the meaning of kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11. Likewise missing is 1 Peter 3:1. First Peter 3:6 is mentioned once, but again its meaning is not explained. Instead, Miller assures us that there was at least one time where “God told Abraham to follow Sarah’s lead” (145). First Peter 3:7 is also mentioned only once, and there, again, we are only told what the text does not mean.
Then note his keen analysis:
The reason that none of these individual passages are thought to be terribly significant is that Miller believes her interpretative paradigm of original equality, voluntary submission, and authority for the sake of service is the main “biblical” teaching. True biblical leadership is a matter of love and service, and any specific text can be read through that lens.
Matters are no better in Byrd, as Naselli explains at length. Rather than quoting him, I’ll conclude by quoting three passages, all central to the question of biblical manhood and womanhood, all of which Byrd does not treat, even once.
1 Peter 3:1–7
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
1 Corinthians 11:7–9
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1 Timothy 2:8–15
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
These texts will not be silenced by omission. God’s word speaks more loudly against these women than man’s words ever could.
There is much more we could say about these books, but we will stop for now. We plan to close our case against the feminists with one more article, exposing their harmful influence in the church of Jesus Christ, before sounding one last applicatory alarm.